A standard of evidense

Discussion in '9/11' started by Wolverine, Jan 11, 2012.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

  1. Wolverine

    Wolverine New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2006
    Messages:
    16,105
    Likes Received:
    234
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I ponder something, I guess it is directed more towards the "truthers" than the other conspiracy theorists.

    Why display such an absence of any standard of evidence?

    Why believe these far flung theories that would involve hundreds if not thousands of people that have no basis in reality?

    Why continuously ignore the fact your arguments have been debunked?

    Meh.
     
  2. 10aces

    10aces New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2011
    Messages:
    829
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yeah...like when we built the 1st atomic bomb...and kept the secret.
     
  3. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That secret was not kept.
     
  4. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Kept the secret from whom?.....certianly not the Russians,OR the Germans, who were certian the answer was in their heavy water experiments......


    Do try again.
     
  5. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The arguments haven't been debunked. You are just trying to make people think they've been debunked. Here are some of the arguments.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/182662-video-message-non-truthers.html#post3774590

    Anyone who looks at all the evidence and still says 9/11 wasn't an inside job should watch this video.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEGgAk1AbA4

    Here's some more good stuff.
    http://tvnewslies.org/tvnl/index.ph...se-you-dont-know-the-official-911-story-.html
    http://tvnewslies.org/tvnl/index.ph...e-the-q911-conspiracy-theory-de-bunkersq.html
     
  6. Patriot911

    Patriot911 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    9,312
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So if 9/11 were such a blatant inside job, why is it your own theories can't stand up to even casual inspection without glaring holes appearing that you cannot explain without completely unbelievable scenarios like everyone on the highway being a plant or the plane making impossible turns?

    If you REALLY believe 9/11 is an inside job, why is it not one truther has ever been able to come up with a coherent theory that covers 9/11 from start to finish? You can't even find two truthers that agree on the same theories. You will also find many truthers that claim to believe theories that directly conflict with one another. Yet we're just suppose to believe them over all other evidence?

    I don't think so.
     
  7. Wolverine

    Wolverine New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2006
    Messages:
    16,105
    Likes Received:
    234
    Trophy Points:
    0
    They will seize any reason to believe any of their government conspiracy bs, but absolute certainty to disbelieve it.

    Lacking a standard of evidence.
     
  8. l4zarus

    l4zarus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    At the most basic level, before assuming there's a conspiracy, one has to establish what the official record says and the facts that back it up before one can claim there's a discrepancy. Being accurate about the official record seems to be a challenge for self identified "truthers".

    Then there's the idea any government source is tainted because it's a government source. Which leaves one with the old stand by of "making sh!t up".

    Maybe that's not fair, but that's what it looks like.
     
  9. DDave

    DDave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2010
    Messages:
    2,002
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    It's pretty accurate though.

    For instance, a certain member claims that the official record claims an incorrect path for the plane that hit the Pentagon because 13 people say so.

    Yet they dismiss the 100+ witnesses whose testimony supports the official record.

    Explanation -- they may have been plants.

    It's senseless to try and debate when they just make stuff up for points that they can't explain and ignore evidence that they don't like.

    That same poster constantly spams the same group of links again and again and again as if flooding the board with them will make them true. They have been debunked and discredited so many times it gets tiresome having to repeat that fact.
     
  10. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The crash site is not consistent with a 757 having hit...
    http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/224114-pentagon-punchout-hole-3.html#post4903310

    ...so the "Witnesses" who say they saw it hit were plants.
    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=10632

    There were also other witnesses who say they saw things that differ from the official story (see above list)

    All of these witnesses saw the 757 flying at an angle inconsistent with the official version...
    http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/2170
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGvXVzdlcQk
    (eight parts)

    ...but it flew out of their sight and they didn't actually see it hit. They just assumed it hit when they saw the smoke and they all believe the official story.

    Here's another witness.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88JQL4esHFg

    There are some quotes from witnesses in this video at the 6:10 time mark.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaHdtl8KAGg


    The info in those links discredits the official story. You know that your attempts to obfuscate that info is having almost zero success so you're trying to bury the info to reduce the number of people who see it. This is really just a war between the "Pro-official story people"...
    http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222

    ...who are trying to bury the evidence and misrepresent it to people who are new to the issue and the truthers who are trying to thwart them by reposting it.

    You can pretend all you want but the evidence that 9/11 was an inside job is so clear that, once people have seen it, there's really nothing you can do to convince them otherwise.
     
  11. Patriot911

    Patriot911 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    9,312
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This is an example of the dishonest tactic of basing a conclusion on bad information to begin with. Pretending the crash site is inconsistant with a 757 hitting it to discredit all the witnesses is quite frankly retarded. How are you going to get every single witness to be a plant? Hundreds of people saw Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, yet not ONE PERSON has said Flight 77 flew over the Pentagon.

    Not every witness is going to agree on every point, yet even the witnesses who saw things that differ from the official story completely disagree with your theory.

    And? 13 saw something different (their own theories don't agree with one another either) and over 100 documented witnesses plus all the physical evidence DOES agree on the angle. It doesn't take a genius to put two and two together and realize people sometimes get things wrong. Happens all the time, especially with violent and emotionally charged events.

    Yet none of the THOUSANDS of people who would have been outside at the national mall on the other side of the Pentagon where the plane would have to fly over at very low level saw a plane leave the Pentagon. You also didn't have any of the planes landing at RIA see the plane nor did you have ATC see a plane. Radar also doesn't show a plane. These are all facts you run away from.

    Read above. Do any of them agree with your theory? No.

    No, they are lies built on other lies built on other lies and all based on opinion, not fact.

    I encourage ANYONE who has doubts to watch the videos and then apply common sense and critical thinking. I have never said for people not to watch the videos. Just more bull(*)(*)(*)(*) Scott makes up.

    Yes, you do constantly respam the same content you can't defend. That doesn't make you right. That just makes you a spammer.

    Sure you can. Unless they are brain dead or don't wish to really look at the evidence, they will see the truth. Your entire line of reasoning to back up your theory begins with an OPINION that the impact site somehow can't be from a 757. When you start with garbage you end up with garbage.

    THAT is the bottom line.
     
  12. DDave

    DDave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2010
    Messages:
    2,002
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Then why did they find wreckage from a 757 there?


    Interesting how the "Citizen Investigation Team" just dismisses the witness accounts that don't support their conclusion. You do the same thing. Not very objective, are you.

    Yes, we have determined that different witnesses say different things. That's why you have to follow up and compare with the physical evidence and see which witness testimony is more credible.

    See above.

    No war here. Just an attempt by a pretty much defunct and impotent movement to pin yet another national disaster on the "evil government" with lies, innuendo, speculation, and accusations. Spamming the same links over and over again will not make them true.

    There is no evidence of an inside job. That is the problem. When people new to the truther theories (as i was several months ago) look into them, they realize after some critical thinking that the truther theories just don't make sense and conflict with each other on too many points. That and the quote mining, lies of omission and out right lies make the "alternative theories" look pretty ridiculous.
     
  13. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
  14. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,601
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Where is the evidence that people can change the Laws of Physics?

    Why don't all the physicists want accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete down the Twin Towers? How can they compute the Potential Energy without it?

    Since 9/11 Science is History.

    psik
     
  15. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,670
    Likes Received:
    3,709
    Trophy Points:
    113
    People wrote the laws of physics. People change them.

    But that's beside the point. No laws of physics have ever been broken or re-written as a direct result of the collapse of the WTC.

    Why don't you ever tell us how accurate it needs to be?
     
  16. l4zarus

    l4zarus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    The problem is this so called evidence you're presenting is from two conspiracy websites and a handful of conspiracy videos. There are real life government conspiracies, that is abuses of federal or state authority. The savings and loan crisis comes to mind. There are criminal charges that include conspiracy and collusion.

    But the difference between these normal conspiracies and "truther" conspiracies is plenty of independent sources that can confirm something amiss with S&L and people should have know about it, and probably did, but didn't care. With "truther" conspiracies the only sources appear to be truther websites and videos. This is highly improbable for a factual event in the real world, especially after 10 years.


    If what you posted is your most compelling evidence, you are wrong on all these counts.
     
  17. Patriot911

    Patriot911 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    9,312
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why is it you STILL refuse to do the calculations using minimum values? Is it because you know the building will still collapse or because you don't know what to do with the information once you have it?
     
  18. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    68
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Good question.

    I'd also direct the same question to the United States, who lock people up in perpetual solitary confinement due to unproven involvement in the 9/11 attacks..UNconvicted of any crimes, of course. Also direct the question at the 9/11 commission and ask how they can claim a narrative about the plotting and funding of the 9/11 attack as fact without corraborating evidence. Ask all the people who believe that 9/11 commission narrative about the "planes operation" as true and claim it as true, which is I believe every skeptic here on this board.
     
  19. Patriot911

    Patriot911 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    9,312
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I love how the terrorist sympathizers and supporters try to get the terrorists off the hook no matter how much evidence there is or how often the terrorists admit to being responsible for 9/11.

    So, HFD, what evidence do you have that 9/11 was an inside job and not one carried out by Al Qaeda? Try to put your love of all things muslim aside and look at it objectively.
     
  20. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    68
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I've not said it was an inside job.. I've not accused anybody of plotting this attack.

    And I'm not trying to get anybody off hook.. But I do think you should prove guilty the people you lock up.. Do you not agree? Are you a supporter of extrajudicial detention?

    You, however, unlike me, seem quite certain about who was behind the attack so I will wait patiently for you to tell me what your best evidence is.
     
  21. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What do you pro-official version people think of the analysis put forward by the "American Society of Civil Engineers" which is shown in this video?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaHdtl8KAGg
    (22:50 time mark)
     
  22. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Here's a video I just found about some witnesses to the plane's flying over the Pentagon.
    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKbT9r-6IPQ"]New Documentary-The Pentagon Witnesses 6 of 9 - YouTube[/ame]
     
  23. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm thinking ASCE Purdue got it right, and the guy 'analyzing' the computer simulation is misrepresenting what it shows. That graphic is about the movement of the fuel, interpretation of other elements is irrelevant.
     
  24. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Witnesses? You have one guy who was somehow both in the south parking lot and on the east dock at the same time. He says it was ten seconds after the impact. Tell me, how far away would a plane travelling 500+ mph be in ten seconds? He sounds a bit confused to me.

    Try again.
     
  25. Playswellwithothers

    Playswellwithothers New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Messages:
    160
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think because truth, in many cases, has an element of relativity (and I don't mean scientifically *snicker*).

    When someone introduces an idea or event that is distressing or goes against what some people believe, some interpret the event/idea differently. They see evidence (or in some cases create evidence) that backs up their interpretation, instead of creating an interpretation based on fact.
     
    Patriot911 and (deleted member) like this.

Share This Page